rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Why won't it ?
When is a takeover, not a takeover (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Danceswithhorses
- Start date
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You're all nuts.
The whole point of the trust is to attempt some level of fan ownership of the club. It's right there, second point in the constitution: "
achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"
Off to Cov rugby this afternoon. Can't be bothered with this fucking charade at the footie until the scheming hedge fund bastards have fucked off ! They won't let go though because they ARE using the club to their own ends and they haven't lost a fraction of what they claim to have, not when all things are considered.
Otis
Well-Known Member
What's gone wrong at Cov, Ashdown?
Thought they were high hopes for them this season again, but they have lost a few already haven't they?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
But it had to start somewhere, was never going to be accepted but as said a start let's hope it sets the ball rolling.
I_Saw_Shaw_Score
Well-Known Member
Not felling Otis went up the other week each player appeared to have a different game plan.
Was always the gamble bringing 30+ new players in 7 changes to today starting line up 3 loans from Wasps in seems they're going for the approach of hoping it falls into place.
Shame but new coach did say 2/3 year plan to get promoted can write this season off 4 defeats is about the max you can allow in a season to get promoted.
Nick
Administrator
Nuts why?
]What publicity and discussion though#
articles in the Guardian, MPs discussing our plight, TV pundits discussing our plight, ex players and managers chipping in, Simon's book telling of our plight, the Trust asking for talks on a possible bid, us discussing it, other football fans discussing it, phonins on the radio discuusing the offer to make an offer etc. etc. etc.. FFS what more do you need to get attention?
Nick
Administrator
Attention from who, and for who?
Anyone and everyone. Seems to be a concerted effort to advertise the fact that we are in the shit and maybe someone somewhere will come snooping around.... The club has no long term commitments - no manager contract, no stadium contract, no debts apart from to Joy's clients, no long term player contracts..... It is in a position to be sold quickly without compensation claims or buy outs of contracts. All a question of discounting any debts ( to Joy's creditors ). She was once referred to as the queen of debt. Most of Cov wants SISU gone and I would hazard a guess that JS has got the club on a baggage free level that could be rapidly disposed of as she would also rather be out of this.
Hadji's_Goatee
Well-Known Member
Exactly what is going on!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
[
FCA site still showing unfiled accounts - SBT Directors need to take this up with the FCA
Officially the FCA website is the repository of public record
Another error is CCFC accounts are on their website
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...on-coventry-city-sky-blue-sports-2982009.aspx
FCA site still showing unfiled accounts - SBT Directors need to take this up with the FCA
Officially the FCA website is the repository of public record
Another error is CCFC accounts are on their website
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...on-coventry-city-sky-blue-sports-2982009.aspx
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Nice you see you concentrating on our owners . Or is that for?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So. Are all SISU related companies accounts in on time? Anything overdue?
As a SBT member I am interested to know why the FRC site says the documents are not filed
If OSB had made the same post would you have made similar comments?
Still we cannot have facts on here can we?
Companies House has a free search database - take a look
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I have. But I thought you might know in your roll as SBT tax inspector.
So are all SISU related companies yp to date?
So why are you asking me?
I am far from being anyone's tax inspector
Also, I am not sure of the relevance of filing at Companies House and "tax inspectors". Do enlighten me.
I repeat I was checking that Corporate filing requirements are being undertaken by the officers of SBT. You realise that if they are / were not the Company can be struck off?
I am far from being anyone's tax inspector
Also, I am not sure of the relevance of filing at Companies House and "tax inspectors". Do enlighten me.
I repeat I was checking that Corporate filing requirements are being undertaken by the officers of SBT. You realise that if they are / were not the Company can be struck off?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Why are you? in the same week as fisher brings it up at least be a bit less transparent.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No it's of no satisfaction to me at all. The trust have no control of CCFC so don't do their accounts have no interest to me the amounts are insignificant at the moment. I also don't care about Otium accounts either it for different reasons ie the more you've got the more you can manipulate if you want to not saying they do you understand but if they wanted to. Your questioning if the trust and not the owners in general is as I have said transparent, no doubt the trust will be the next in a long line of bodies who will take the blame for our predicament. I await the obvious shitstorm that will descend on the trust when fisher gets you fully mobilised.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Why are you making a fuss over a relatively trivial sum, its been publically declared so there is no attempt to hide anything.
Were you concerned when CCFC failed to submit accounts and received several transfer embargoes and points deductions?
To my mind a far more serious matter. Your attitude smacks of 'fiddling while Rome burns'.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So who are these who are heavily linked to SISUand ARVO? I'm guessing you know as your finger is so on the pulse. They've had a lot of resignation's over the last three years. It's almost as if people and organisations are falling over themselves to distance themselves from SISU. Any thoughts on this? Is this one of the companies that you're monitoring?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC371045/officers
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Is this what you are referring to Tony / Grendel
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Naa. If it was this DI Grendull would have worked it out. There are no SISU stooges on here, just wasp's and CCC stooges. The man who taught Morse everything he knows has spoken
duffer
Well-Known Member
Just to come back on the SBT thing, from what I can see their accounts are now filed. This from the link you provided earlier in the thread.
https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=29630&Suffix=R
C
Correct - but look at the filing dates
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Things should be filed on time
The accounts were filed in August 2016 well before the issue was raised by fisher. There were two years that were out of date not 3. The latest year was in time. Just because the document does not appear on line does not mean it has not been received a point made clear by the registrar.
The trust received professional advice that statutory audit was inappropriate for the size and nature of the entity. It would have spent the money they had on audit fees. That meant a change in its constitution was required. That needed legal, supporters direct, members and registrar approval, assistance and regular communication. That took time but it was done correctly if far too slowly. Accounts were subjected to independent examination approved at AGM and filed.
The accounts were filed in August 2016 well before the issue was raised by fisher. There were two years that were out of date not 3. The latest year was in time. Just because the document does not appear on line does not mean it has not been received a point made clear by the registrar.
The trust received professional advice that statutory audit was inappropriate for the size and nature of the entity. It would have spent the money they had on audit fees. That meant a change in its constitution was required. That needed legal, supporters direct, members and registrar approval, assistance and regular communication. That took time but it was done correctly if far too slowly. Accounts were subjected to independent examination approved at AGM and filed.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If you replace SBT with the name Dhinsa or similar people would be pissing themselves laughing at a 'bid' being made for the club. They'd be ripped to shreds for having no money, failing to file accounts etc.
I'm sure there's many of us who would love to think the fans can takeover the trust but they, like anyone else, need to present a credible plan and a professional approach the same as we would expect from any other potential new owner.
I'm sure there's many of us who would love to think the fans can takeover the trust but they, like anyone else, need to present a credible plan and a professional approach the same as we would expect from any other potential new owner.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
what was stirred up was a load of rubbish then.
The question now is why?
It got stirred up in response to the trust wanting to discuss fan ownership.
Why create such a hostile reaction over something. That actually wasn't incorrect?
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Fair comment CD . They need to up their game. The biggest criticism on this issue is that they didn't get it done on time or quickly enough. Bit of an own goal really..... that has been fully and properly rectified. They can not let it happen again.
What it does show however is that they are addressing their issues and prepared to take the proper professional advice to get it done and right.
It wouldn't be the trust running the club in any case..... you bring in the right professionals to do that with the relevant experience
robbiekeane
Well-Known Member
Jesus you lot are boring
